So why did Fairfax change their story?

Huge amounts of the original article were expunged and replaced with additions that made no sense. So much was removed that it shows clear manipulation of the story by someone.

WOBH contacted Labour and received an emphatic denial that they were involved in censoring the story. The spokesman for David Cunliffe said “We aren’t that powerful”.

Contact was also made with John Key’s people who as predicted said it wasn’t them.

I stand by my statement earlier that John Key probably laughed out loud when he saw David Cunliffe was calling him a liar.

It is worth following the links to the original story.

The Stuff article, here, originally had as its lead paragraph David Cunliffe saying the Prime Minister is a liar and his word can’t be trusted. They also had a direct quote from him saying “John Key tells lies”.

Now my reaction when I saw the original story was that it just made David Cunliffe look shrill and nasty, and that the more people who saw the article the better.

When Fairfax changed the story an hour later, I assumed they had got the quote wrong and Cunliffe never said what they reported.

However it seems Cunliffe does think it is a good strategy to go around NZ, and call John Key a liar. That’s fine. But why did Fairfax change the story to hide that? Did they think it was defaming John Key? Or did they think it made Cunliffe look too shrill?

Answers to those questions would be welcome.

It also raises the bigger issue of the practice of some media to significantly amend a story, and not note that have amended it. I think significant changes should always be noted.

dave53

There’s probably no conspiracy here. Stuff posts are put up by very junior people. A senior person (like an editor or chief sub) would have seen it on Stuff and had it taken down for fear of attracting a defamtion writ.

While such a writ would be very unlikely, the media today really can’t afford one.

altiora

Dave53: That’s nonsense because the original story would, of itself, amount to defamation. I scarcely think that John Key is going to do a Colin Craig and sue Silent T and Herald, do you?

More credible is that Silent T engaged his nasty tongue before brain, didn’t consider that it would be reported, and then more sage minds on his team went “oh hell, this doesn’t look good, given the PM was exhorting politicians to behave”.

Voters are turned off by nasty feral behaviour, but I guess a combination of innate propensity and frustration at the polls, means that leftists just can’t help themselves.

Bill Ted

As someone who has worked in the media very recently, I would say it’s an 85% probability that the story was only changed because a member of Cunliffe’s team contacted Stuff and had the offending quotes pulled, probably claiming they were out of context blah blah blah. Stuff, being general pussies, obliged. The journo, in this case, got shafted.

Bill Ted

slightlyrighty

The big issue is that we know the story was changed. We can only wonder as to why but the narrative seems to have been changed to make the criticism of Key more palatable and Cunliffe appear less ranting. The staggering thing is that the PM being openly called a liar in a public forum by the leader of the Opposition is actually newsworthy and one must ask why a news agency has decided not to report the news?

Bill Ted

@peterwn you’re not wrong. But from experience the online crew of both APN and Fairfax only amend stories when a complaint is received. Could be a complaint from inhouse. Entirely possible. I just think in this instance it’s improbable.

questions

Article was probably written by someone young with a proper head, when an older right leaning editor saw it (probably tipped off by National party mates), he would have half shat himself about the truth being told, and had it pulled to protect his precious access.

Bottom line is: if the article was pulled as a result of political interference, it is a lot more credible that that interference came from National.

The staggering thing is that the PM being openly called a liar in a public forum by the leader of the Opposition is actually newsworthy and one must ask why a news agency has decided not to report the news?

Because lying suggests a coverup and a coverup suggests a conspiracy, and talking about active conspiracies – i.e. conspiracy theory – on MSM means that someone has gone seriously off the reservation.

itstricky

kiwi in america

The MSM engage in message shaping in favour of left leaning parties all the time – the trouble is that the internet has greatly enlarged the scope for the said media getting caught in the act of doing this. It was excellent of Whale to spot this – his ongoing campaign against particularly NZ Herald pratfalls should’ve alerted Fairfax to the likely outcome of any rush to publish an inflammatory speech. The reporter in question is not a senior political writer or editor and likely dashed off his piece and naively posted it before his more experienced colleagues could apply the time honoured ‘polish’ in favour of the left. Once in Whale’s sights he was able to screen shot the entire messy editing attempts and laid bare a process that normally goes on behind closed doors.